In any democracy, the media serves as both a watchdog and a gatekeeper that exposes state wrongdoing, holding authorities accountable, and maintaining a vital check-and-balance role. Criticism of those in power is not only tolerated but often encouraged as a safeguard against abuse. Press or media councils are intended to be independent, self-regulatory bodies that facilitate editorial freedom and protect media independence.
Across the world, press councils typically function as independent institutions with a primary mandate to uphold press freedom and promote ethical journalism. They do so in two key ways: by drafting and enforcing journalists’ codes of conduct, and by sensitizing newsrooms to adhere to those standards.
Press Councils in established democracies
In healthy democracies, such codes are prepared and enforced by professional associations, while governments may provide financial support but are barred from controlling the body that safeguards ethics. The composition of press councils is also kept free from political interference.
In Australia, for example, the Press Council is composed of an independent chair, public members with no media affiliations, nominees from both large and small publishers, and independent journalists. Members are appointed through a transparent process, usually nominated by professional associations. Its role is to promote ethical journalism, arbitrate complaints, facilitate fair outcomes, and set professional standards—without the authority to impose fines or censorship.
The United Kingdom’s Press Complaints Commission, established voluntarily by the media sector to avoid statutory regulation, is funded by the industry through a levy and composed mainly of lay members to ensure independence. In Germany, the Press Council operates as a non-profit association under private law, formed by media organizations to defend press freedom and enforce a voluntary Press Code. Similarly, the Swedish Press Council—the oldest in the world—and Finland’s Council for Mass Media are self-regulated, industry-led bodies that interpret professional standards, handle complaints, and safeguard free expression, with transparent funding from industry and, in some cases, limited state support that does not compromise independence.
Censorship attempts threaten Nepal’s press freedom
In Nepal, however, the government appears to be moving in the opposite direction by pushing forward new media laws and policies that risk undermining press freedom, in disregard of constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and communication, as well as international human rights commitments.
Under the Press Council Act, Press Council Nepal (PCN) is already structured to allow deep political influence. The proposed Media Council Bill continues this trend, retaining the same structure and functions but adding harsher penalties and granting even more direct political control. This politicization, reinforced by the Federation of Nepali Journalists’ (FNJ) party alignment, has transformed what should be an independent guardian of ethics into a tool for political control, in stark contrast to self-regulatory and independent models elsewhere.
Currently before Parliament, the Media Council Bill is widely viewed as an attempt to consolidate state control and impose censorship. It does so in three ways: curbing the independence of media organizations, particularly the FNJ; centralizing political influence over council leadership positions; and tightening state control over key regulatory and media institutions, including the Press Council Nepal (soon to be the Media Council), the Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) authority, state-owned broadcasters like Radio Nepal and Nepal Television, the Gorkhapatra Corporation, and the national news agency Rastriya Samachar Samiti. This consolidation has weakened the FNJ’s institutional independence and eroded journalists’ courage to question authority, with many speaking out only superficially while remaining silent on authoritarian overreach.
Political capture of FNJ and Press Council
In recent years, the FNJ has increasingly aligned with political parties, with its leaders openly courting appointments to the Press Council, National Information Commission (NIC), Minimum Wage Fixation Committee, state media outlets, and other committees. This political capture is mirrored in the structure of the proposed Media Council, where party affiliation rather than independence is the decisive factor. The result is a troubling nexus designed not to strengthen journalism, but to control, censor, and silence it.
Even when the FNJ has called for amending problematic clauses in the Bill, parliamentary committees have largely ignored those appeals—knowing that the FNJ no longer carries independent authority, having traded it for political patronage. The fact that Press Council Nepal has been without a chairperson for over three months, with board appointments heavily politicized, underscores the extent of party control—not only over the Council but also over the FNJ, once a key defender of press freedom.
Criminalizing journalism
Some of the Bill’s most troubling provisions directly undermine constitutional rights, including Article 17.2(a) (Freedom of Expression), Article 19 (Right to Communication), and Article 27 (Right to Information).
Clause 29 empowers the government to issue directives to the Council, which must then direct media houses accordingly. This is reminiscent of the Rana-era censorship edicts that dictated what Gorkhapatra could or could not publish. It risks creating a media environment where only government-approved content survives.
The Bill also allows the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology to recommend Council office bearers, without any mechanism to assess their expertise, integrity, or independence. While terms are set at four years, Clause 10(2)(1) grants the government sweeping authority to remove members at any time, opening the door to direct political control.
Clause 18 introduces fines of up to NPR 1 million for alleged violations of the code of conduct, with imprisonment for those unable to pay. This treats ethical lapses as criminal offenses. Further, under Clause 18(2), the Council could compel journalists or outlets to pay full compensation demanded by complainants, an instrument that could easily be weaponized to cripple independent media financially.
The case for evidence-based reform
What Nepal urgently needs is an independent, evidence-based baseline study to map the evolving media landscape, assess media and digital literacy, and examine how press councils function in established democracies. Such a study should guide genuine consultations to improve the Bill, ensuring reforms are rooted in best practices rather than political expediency.
Consultations must be inclusive, drawing in independent voices from media, academia, and civil society—not only politically affiliated organizations or factional journalist groups that reinforce party-media nexuses.
Reform of the Council’s formation process is crucial. Professional associations, not individuals, should nominate council members. The government’s role must be limited strictly to facilitation, with no influence over appointments. Similarly, office bearers must be accountable to the public, through mechanisms such as parliamentary hearings informed by evidence and consultation feedback.In any democracy, the media serves as both a watchdog and a gatekeeper—exposing state wrongdoing, holding authorities accountable, and maintaining a vital check-and-balance role. Criticism of those in power is not only tolerated but often encouraged as a safeguard against abuse. Press or media councils are intended to be independent, self-regulatory bodies that facilitate editorial freedom and protect media independence.
Across the world, press councils typically function as independent institutions with a primary mandate to uphold press freedom and promote ethical journalism. They do so in two key ways: by drafting and enforcing journalists’ codes of conduct, and by sensitizing newsrooms to adhere to those standards.
Keeping politics out of media governance
Strict eligibility criteria are needed for Council leadership. Individual journalists should serve only as representatives of recognized professional associations, not as politically active actors.
A troubling pattern has emerged of journalists distancing themselves from political parties only weeks or months before seeking Press Council appointments—only to continue political activities informally. One notable case involved a former FNJ Vice-Chair who resigned to contest internal elections of the ruling Nepali Congress; after losing, she returned to the FNJ and is now considered for a Press Council leadership role.
To prevent such practices, candidates should be required to renounce party membership for at least five years before being eligible for Council leadership. Political cadres and those affiliated with party-linked organizations must be barred from serving as Chair or Board members. Only then can the Council regain credibility as an ethics body tasked with safeguarding press freedom, rather than serving as an instrument of censorship.
Without such safeguards, the proposed Media Council Bill risks entrenching political control, eroding Nepal’s fragile democratic gains, and silencing the very voices that democracy depends on.
The author is the founding chairperson of Media Action Nepal and teaches Media Ethics at Tbilisi State University, Georgia
